TNR: No conference committee for ObamaCare

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” This includes benefits and taxation.

–That can’t be right. Does that mean that if one state charges no state income tax, then the citizens of all the other states are entitled to that benefit?

Jimbo3 on January 4, 2010 at 2:36 PM

FYI: More info on the “privileges and immunities” clause and what it really does–

The privileges and immunities that are protected under Article IV include the right to receive protection from state government; the right to acquire and possess all kinds of property; the right to travel through or reside in any state for purposes of trade, agriculture, or professional endeavors; the right to claim the benefit of the writ of Habeas Corpus; the right to sue and defend actions in court; and the right to receive the same tax treatment as that of the citizens of the taxing state.

This clause forbids a state from unjustly depriving citizens from other states of any rights derived from state citizenship solely on the basis of nonresidence. Yet the Supreme Court has never interpreted it to preclude all deferential treatment of in-state citizens. As a result, the Privileges and Immunities Clause does not bar differential state standards governing the practice of certain professions. Out-of-state doctors, lawyers, and other professionals may be required to prove their competency based on standards that are higher than those applied to their in-state counterparts. Tuition rates at public Colleges and Universities are typically lower for in-state students. Out-of-state residents are charged more for hunting and fishing licenses than are in-state residents. Such discrepancies are generally accepted as justifiable because they advance legitimate state interests.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Privileges+and+Immunities.

Jimbo3 on January 4, 2010 at 2:41 PM

This is the result of not teaching Civics in public school anymore.

Nutshell: The US Constitution applies to federal laws. This clause prevents (albeit hard to prove nowadays) the federal government from creating a benefit for one state that is not available to another. It prevents favoritism and Yikes! Vote buying.

State income taxes are just that…state taxes. The Fed gvt has no say in state taxes.

BobMbx on January 4, 2010 at 2:44 PM

–Actually, Bob, you’re wrong. the clause does apply to state laws.

This is from Hicklin v. Orbeck , 437 U.S. 518 (1978)

Facts of the Case:
In 1972, the Alaska Legislature passed the Local Hire Under State Leases Act which required “all oil and gas leases [and other activities related to this industry] to which the state is a party” include provisions for the preferential hiring of Alaska residents over non-residents. To administer the law, residents were issued residency cards which they were to present to potential employers when seeking jobs. Hicklin and others did not qualify for employment under the Alaska residency standard.

Question:
Did the Alaska statute violate the Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion:
The unanimous Court held that the Alaska Local Hire Act violated the Constitution. Citing past decisions of the Court, Justice Brennan argued that the Alaska law did not meet the strict standard of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, namely, that discrimination against non-citizens of a state is only allowed when those non-citizens “constitute a peculiar source of evil at which the statute is aimed.” Since no evidence indicated that non-residents were the major cause of state unemployment or any other evil, there was no justification for the law.

Jimbo3 on January 4, 2010 at 2:55 PM